tv [untitled] May 31, 2012 5:00am-5:30am PDT
of them. chairperson hur: next, mayor ed lee. ivory madison, abraham mertens, the sheriff, we have discussed him. chief wendy stills. why do we need to hear from her? >> to provide a factual basis about how it is the sheriff's department interacts with the probation department also particularly how the probation department interacts with probationers. which is something -- not something that most -- it is
through that that the conflicts inherent in the relationship will become crystalize. we need to put in a fact- finding of origin -- operation. also, i could point out. i am sure you noticed. on our witness list and expert witness list, she is testifying in different compassions -- a different capacities. chair person hur: view on wendy will? commissioner renne: is it your
intention to testify by declaration? >> if i could make the point that by doing this by declaration, we are shouldering the burden of the witness list. we're asking you to review the decorations -- and declarations. we will do what we need to do to get the finals -- it is easier to make a decision when to have seen it. the burden of doing that and including more witnesses will fall on our shoulders and we're willing to share that burden tomorrow to give you evidence from the record. >> for me, the concern is regardless of the work that is required to get the declaration, most declarants will be cross-
examined. i don't want to be falsely persuaded this will reduce the burden if byrdak have to hear from all this trouble live. >> my response would be at the point where you see the opening declaration, you can still put the witnesses -- the witness does not need to be subject to [unintelligible] this procedure can be repeated or may be done best on the basis of the actual declarations see what the witness does offer and how it fits in. chairperson hur: what do you
think about that procedure? >> in theory, it sounds fine. it does not address our concern that witnesses such as this chief wendy still are relevant to the inquiry. she is not going to add anything to your task of determining what the facts are, what share for mercury did and whether or not there was official misconduct. i think this was not -- if you allow them to put in a declaration, we will be objecting to its emissions in its entirety. dennis wholey boehner's and -- that is better than having them on a question by question basis. >> our task should be to eliminate those witnesses who we
truly feel are relevant and for whom a declaration is not likely or very unlikely to provide us with relevant information. to the extent we think it is a close call and there is to determine. we should evaluate the different-decoration. -- of the declaration. are their views as to where wendy steals -- stills falls data -- on the declaration? >> i think i understand the mayor wanting to expand but that is the category i see it
i know you submitted this prayer to some of the briefing. does anybody become unnecessary in light of sloot recent briefing and your investigation or do you intend to call these experts? >> we would still intend to call these experts and i can do a brief explanation of why. chairperson hur: yes, please. >> there have been many others who have been disciplined but not terminated on the basis of criminal conduct. mr. chinako is a consulting experts. he could speak to that issue. he could speak to how is this --
it is the sheriff should be treated under his own disciplinary section. chiel landstone is being offered as a law enforcement officer who teaches an ethics course at the professional association for law enforcement. and law enforcement and ethics for chiefs. this is germane and he has the expertise to give it. chairperson hur: we have heard from mr. keith earlier. >> she is here on this list because she can offer important
testimony about was this just about a pension on the arm? was this just about a decision to turn the band around and not return to the restaurateur's of the more significant. this premium not about a plea deal. they're about the actual conduct and what the context means in terms of the public official, the acts of the public official and the relationship between those facts and public official's petition. -- position. we need to be able to explain his conduct and ms. lemmon was being offered in the criminal case, would have gone and served at trial for that exact same purpose, to show that there is more content than when share mirkarimi has a willing to admit. we think she is important for that reason.
we have heard about -- what expertise where she offering? >> although she was the prosecutor in the case, and that case remains ongoing she is not coming to specs to this case. she is coming as the chief domestic violence prosecutor in the da's office to help you understand what that plea deal meant and what the sentence means and what it does not mean that they dropped the other charges. do have seen in the briefing some assertions -- the facts have not been proven, there have been set aside. that is not exactly with the pre deal means. it goes to our stickout -- what the conduct was and the conclusion of the criminals
proceedings. and as many volunteers to necessarily know, myself a since -- and i can speak to chief still. she is not coming as an expert. she ran california prison and she is speaking about the responsibilities and duties inherent in running a system that blocks people up and how share of mirkarimi -- [unintelligible] there is one more. varley eastampton -- beverly
upton can speak to the communities and a nonprofit agencies that have worked on this issue. a murder catalyzed the community to work together,. chairperson hur: please, we are trying to get this done. if you could keep torre and -- quite, that would help all of us. >> we take the position that one of the share of's duties is to work effectively with the community on an issue of vital importance. we believe his ability to do that is impaired by his domestic
violence and ms. upton is being offered as an opinion witness to speak to that. commissioner studley: i have a question about expert no. 5. so to whether someone has played a part in the actual proceedings. cabriolet use as an expert on the issues that are being offered. you folks to do this all the time know better what the experts standard corporate really would be. >> i am not sure if that applies to chief still or specific as to the prosecutor. chairperson hur: would you like to address the question?
>> i would like to express our objection to these witnesses and get to that particular witness. those one of many who may have demonstrated their and interested participants here. maybe i should start about -- by going backwards. ms. upton was a vocal critic and if i am not mistaken, when we're here last month, she came up and gave public comments against sheriff mirkarimi. how anyone thinks this type of bias experts should be allowed in spray such as -- sbe was tbhe -- the prosecutor on the criminal case. she will come appear and educate people about how dismissal of charges does not mean a thing. >> i understand your objection
to whether the witness is useful and have read says spot -- not going to be useful. is there a legal basis to exclude her? does the fact that she was a prosecutor does not mean as she would have to -- domestic violence prosecutions and how these cases are resolved, how is that relevant that you have a discussion of where conners was. how the girl case was resolved as -- you can determine the facts and you can decide whether or not this was official misconduct. there is a legal objection to the witness's testimony. >> would they be arguing to the plea deal or what it means to
have certain charges being dropped? are you arguing any of that? >> what we intend to argue is that the misdemeanor charge upon which share for mirkarimi was convicted in and of itself does not constitute official misconduct. we do not intend to argue the effect of the dismissal on the other charges. we with respect -- the incident that was underlined what we intend to argue that grabbing his wife's arm during this argument also was not official misconduct and that is it. that is with this inquiry should be about. chairperson hur: your briefing did suggest that -- try to suggest the dismissal of the other charges means they did not occur. that is -- i'm not hearing that from you right now. >> correct.
we did not mean to suggest that. we do not argue that the dismissal of the other charges means that nothing happened. we will be able to prove what happened is what i've been telling you. we do not intend to argue with a legal effect of the dismissal of the other charges. that is correct. chairperson hur: in light of that statement and i can understand your confusion prior. does that obviate the need to have ms. aguliar? >> if we can reach appropriate stipulations, that might obviate this. if we could nail him down in a stipulation.
at least the subject matter would be firm. we may be able to forgo her. i am concerned about what is at issue here is the guilty plea to a misdemeanor. that is not what is at issue. what is at issue is the burkle behavior. not the guilty plea. the guilty plea is an admission of criminal guilt but it is not an element of official misconduct and should not be mistaken for the truth and love the a good dog -- of the inquiry. we cannot agree to be limited to what share of mirkarimi is willing to admit to. >> no one is saying you should be. you needed this because the sheriff was suggesting that the dismissal of the other charges was evidently did not occur.
he stipulated this in open session in front of the public that is not what he is going to say. why do we still need her? assuming you can get a written stipulation on that. >> we need her to also explained that false imprisonment as a matter of law is not co- extensive with turning a band around from going to the restaurant to going home, that would not satisfy false imprisonment. the parties stated there was that charge. there is a discrepancy between what he is saying and what can be supported by his plea deal. we would like to have that and please understand this in the context that the only state -- we have had access to are the statements in the media. we do not have stipulations or have an interview of sheriff mark renée. he will not talk to us.
we need to be able to bring witnesses who are responsive to the arguments we have made -- heard him make all swear. -- elsewhere. if that means we don't need to bring a witness we're prepared not to do that. we're not in a position where we can give that up. we do not know what it is that we're going to encounter. >> could ask you one question of clarification. is it not your position that the guilty plea to false imprisonment, standing alone is sufficient grounds for the mayor to find and suspend the mayor?
>> suspending the sheriff. >> is that not one of your positions that that standing alone is sufficient? you said it is not. assuming it is not. we want to be able to prove the rest of it. >> yes, we do believe that standing alone, the conduct that was adjudicated in the context of a man filling the office of sheriff and being share philip and being a member of the board of supervisors, we think that is sufficient to state a cause of action for official misconduct and lead to his removal. it is that our case is not limited to that. we also do not agree with the position that is somehow without content that the argument that it is not a crime of moral turpitude relies on a ninth circuit case about whether it is possible to commit without moral turpitude.
an offense that can be a crime of moral turpitude can lead to deep trichet -- to deportation in some cases. what is at issue is the behavior and that behavior and the case law is in moral turpitude. we have -- want to be able to present you with the actual conduct that is the basis of the charges. not an empty form. >> thank you. shercommissioner studley: i woud find it helpful to hear from the expert second witness.
we will each be asked to determine something about the standard of decency, good faith, and right action required of public officials and it appears to me that this testimony would be helpful to me. if prof. tillemann -- lemmon is the primary domestic violence witness, that is a witness from whom i would like to hear. i think the issues related to ms. adler -- aguilar, if there is an answer if she is a legal expert. the best evidence is what we will get more from the fact witnesses and i would be prepared to put that one aside unless and until we feel we have a question, that would hold if that is permissible. and that for me would leave --
whether it is something chief still would add. the comment about the expert witness is well taken. >> you heard from -- will hear from experts 1 and 2. >> 1 and/or two. if the mayor thinks they speak two different issues. there is some effort to say that they have somewhat different focuses in what they would be speaking to. >> one or two. number three. i have not responded as to four and five, not now, and 6. i also wondered if we have the authority to pay summit
declarations. just in terms of providing some clarity and manageability. you would know better, you and the other litigators would know better if that is appropriate. >> thank you. i echo a lot of your views on this. one concern i have with experts over percipient witnesses is experts typically are paid. by the party. if we differ ruling on experts who we think are not relevant, that will lead to the defense having to as a protective measure hiring experts to offer testimony on the same issues. i am less willing to delay the decision about the relevance of a witness when it comes to an expert than i am my comes to recipient witness.
>> i share your view. i do not think we need colonel. same with ms. upton. to me, chief still is duplicative. the experience seems more a relative to what we're dealing with. a local issue rather than the state issue or cdc issue. as of now, my view would be at most we hear from one, too, and 3. i welcome the views of my fellow commissioners. >> i would like to know generally speaking when you have an expert witness, euless what opinions that 6 -- expert will
address. to the extent the other side could prepare itself with a counter. i have not heard from you as to any of these experts we're talking about. i would like to know what specific opinions are you going to ask these efforts -- experts to provide and how do the opinions of this first expert differ or how is it different from what you will get from chief lansdowne and wendy? why isn't wone -- one of them
sufficient? there will help in preparing a hearing record and sending it down to the board. taiex thank you. the witnesses are based out or aimed at the subject matter. the first one is aimed at law- enforcement discipline and the consistency of treatment -- between this and other officers who have committed crimes. the second witness is about being a chief law-enforcement officer and the ethical considerations that go with that. the third one, domestic violence, fourth one, not running a state prison -- to be in charge of an antheil gerald apparatus and it is analogous to a criminal prison, is that it is at a local level. we're